Source document: https://docs-lawep.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/1698941876016.pdf (Zambia)
REPUBLIC OF ZAMBIA REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL SECURITY AND FOREIGN AFFAIRS ON THE CONSIDERATION OF THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY SCRUTINY OF THE PROPOSAL TO RATIFY THE PROTOCOL FOR THE SUPPRESSION OF UNLAWFUL ACTS OF VIOLENCE AT AIRPORTS SERVING INTERNATIONAL CIVIL AVIATION, SUPPLEMENTARY TO THE CONVENTION FOR THE SUPPRESSION OF UNLAWFUL ACTS AGAINST THE SAFETY OF CIVIL AVIATION OF 1988 FOR THE FOURTH SESSION OF THE TWELFTH NATIONAL ASSEMBLY Printed by the National Assembly of Zambia REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL SECURITY AND FOREIGN AFFAIRS ON THE CONSIDERATION OF THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY SCRUTINY OF THE PROPOSAL TO RATIFY THE PROTOCOL FOR THE SUPPRESSION OF UNLAWFUL ACTS OF VIOLENCE AT AIRPORTS SERVING INTERNATIONAL CIVIL AVIATION, SUPPLEMENTARY TO THE CONVENTION FOR THE SUPPRESSION OF UNLAWFUL ACTS AGAINST THE SAFETY OF CIVIL AVIATION OF 1988 FOR THE FOURTH SESSION OF THE TWELFTH NATIONAL ASSEMBLY TABLE OF CONTENTS Item 1.0 Membership of the Committee 2.0 Functions of the Committee 3.0 Meetings of the Committee 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 Conclusion Procedure Adopted by the Committee Background to the Protocol Objective of the Convention Salient Provisions of the Convention Summary of Submissions from Stakeholders Committee’s Observations and Recommendations Appendix I: - List of Witnesses Appendix II: - List of National Assembly Officials Page No 1 1 1 2 2 2 3 4 6 9 11 13 i REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL SECURITY AND FOREIGN AFFAIRS ON THE CONSIDERATION OF THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY SCRUTINY OF THE PROPOSAL TO RATIFY THE PROTOCOL FOR THE SUPPRESSION OF UNLAWFUL ACTS OF VIOLENCE AT AIRPORTS SERVING INTERNATIONAL CIVIL AVIATION, SUPPLEMENTARY TO THE CONVENTION FOR THE SUPPRESSION OF UNLAWFUL ACTS AGAINST THE SAFETY OF CIVIL AVIATION OF 1988, FOR THE FOURTH SESSION OF THE TWELFTH NATIONAL ASSEMBLY.
1.0 Membership The Committee consisted of: Dr M Malama, MP, (Chairperson); Ms A M Chisangano, MP (Vice Chairperson); Mr E J Muchima,MP; Brig Gen M Sitwala,(Rtd) MP; Mr A K Mbangweta, MP; Mr L Nyirenda, MP; Ms M Miti, MP; Dr F N’gambi, MP; Mr A B Malama, MP; and Ms M Lubezhi, MP The Honourable Mr Speaker National Assembly Parliament Buildings LUSAKA Sir, The Committee has the honour to present its Report on the National Assembly scrutiny of the proposal to ratify the Protocol for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts of Violence at Airports Serving International Civil Aviation Convention, for the Fourth Session of the Twelfth National Assembly 2.0 Functions of the Committee Pursuant to Article 63 of the Constitution of Zambia, Chapter 1 of the Laws of Zambia, as amended by Act, No.
2 of 2016 and Section 5 of the Ratification of International Agreements Act, No.

34 of 2016, the National Assembly is reposed with the power to oversee the performance of Executive functions by, among other things, approving international agreements and treaties before they are acceded to or ratified.
The Committee was mandated to consider and make recommendations to the House, on the proposed approval of the ratification of the Protocol to the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts of Violence at Airports Serving International Civil Aviation Convention.

3.0 Meetings of the Committee The Committee held nine meetings to consider the proposal to ratify the Protocol to the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts of Violence at Airports Serving International Civil Aviation Convention.
1 4.0 Procedure Adopted by the Committee In order to acquaint itself with the provisions and ramifications of the International Instrument under consideration, the Committee sought both written and oral submissions from stakeholders as listed at Appendix II.
5.0 Background to the Protocol The Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Civil Aviation, sometimes referred to as the Sabotage Convention or the Montreal Convention, is a multilateral treaty by which states agree to prohibit and punish behaviour which may threaten the safety of civil aviation.
It was adopted by the International Conference on Air Law at Montreal, Canada on 23rd September, 1971 and it came into operation on 26th January, 1973, after it had been ratified by ten states.

By the end of 2019, the Convention had 188 State Parties.

The purpose of the Convention was to prohibit behavior which may threaten the safety of civil aviation.

The Convention, however, did not apply to customs, law enforcement or military aircraft.

Thus it applied exclusively to civilian aircraft.


The Convention set out the principle that a party to the Convention must prosecute a person who commited any of the offences provided in the Convention under Article 1 or send the individual to another state that requested that person’s extradition for the purpose of prosecution of the same offence.
The State Parties however, felt that the Convention did not adequately address all the issues relating to the suppression of unlawful acts against the safety of civil aviation.

Therefore, on 24th February, 1988, a supplementary treaty known as the Protocol for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts of Violence at Airports Serving International Civil Aviation, was signed at Montreal, Canada.

The Protocol was meant to modify the principal Convention of 1971.
The Protocol came into force on 6thAugust 1989 and by February 2018, it had been ratified by 175 states, 173 of which were UN Member states plus the Cook and Niue Islands.

There were seven UN Member States that were not party to the Protocol.

Zambia became a State Party to the Principal Convention on 3rd March 1987, the date on which it deposited its Instruments of ratification.
However, to date, Zambia is not a State Party to the Protocol for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts of Violence at Airports Serving International Civil Aviation.

The purpose, therefore, of the proposal to ratify the Protocol is to bring Zambia in tandem with other signatories to the 1971 Convention.

6.0 Objectives of the Protocol The primary objective of the Protocol was to make additional provisions in relation to the subject matter of the Convention.
In effect, the Convention and Protocol shall be read and interpreted as one single instrument.

2 7.0 Salient Provisions of the Protocol Article 1: Definitions Article I provided that the Protocol supplemented the Convention and stipulated that the Convention and Protocol shall be read and interpreted as one single instrument.

Article II: Offences Article 1 of the Convention provided for offences made unlawfully and intentionally against an aircraft.
Article II of the Protocol amended Article 1 of the Convention by including offences against persons at the airport or a facility at the airport.

Article III: Obligations of Contracting States Article III of the Protocol amended Article 5 of the Convention.
Article 5 obliged each contracting State to take such measures as may be necessary to establish its jurisdiction over the offences in instances where the offence was committed in the territory of that state, against or on board an aircraft registered in that State.
In this regard, Article III of the Protocol provided for the insertion of paragraph 2bis which included paragraph 1bis of Article 1 to be among the measures each contracting state may take to establish its jurisdiction over the offences listed in paragraph 1bis.
Article IV: Period and Place for Signature to Member States Article IV of the Protocol provided for the period and the place where the Protocol shall be open for signature to member states that participated in the International Conference on Air Law held in Montreal, Canada.

Article V: Ratification by the Signatory States This Article provided that the Protocol shall be subject to ratification by the signatory states.
Further, it provided an opportunity for states that did not ratify the Convention, but wished to ratify the Protocol to either ratify or accede to the Convention at the same time.

Additionally, all instruments of ratification shall be deposited with the International Civil Aviation Organisation or the countries designated by the Protocol.
Article VI: Enforcement and Registration The Protocol provided that it would enter into force thirty {30} days after ten (10) signatory states had deposited their instruments of ratification of the Protocol.

Additionally, it provided that once the Protocol entered into force, it shall be registered by the depositaries in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations and the Convention on International Civil Aviation.
Article VII: Accession by any Non-Signatory State This Article provided that the Protocol shall, after it had entered into force, be open for accession by any non-signatory state.

The provision accorded a non-signatory state to the Convention an opportunity to accede to the Protocol at the same time it ratified or acceded to the Convention.

Article VIII: Denunciation of the Protocol This Article allowed contracting parties to denounce the Protocol by written notification addressed to the depositaries.
The Article further provided that the denunciation shall take effect 3 six months from the date on which notification was received by the depositaries.

The provision also provided that denunciation of the Protocol did not mean denunciation of the Convention.

However, denunciation of the Convention shall entail denunciation of the Protocol.
Article IX: Information on the Date of Each Signatory and Date of Deposit Article IX provided that the depositaries shall promptly inform all signatories and acceding states of the date of each signatory and date of deposit of each instrument of ratification or accession of the Protocol.

The depositaries shall also inform all signatories of the denunciation of the Protocol and the date thereof.
8.0 Summary of Submission from Stakeholders The Ratification of International Agreements Act, No.34 of 2016 (herein referred to as the Act), provided guidance on the parameters to look out for before an international agreement was ratified or acceded to by Zambia, namely; that it should be in the best interest of the state.
Section 3(2) of the Act explained the considerations to have in mind when examining what would constitute ‘best interest of the state’ as follows: “(2) The Minister referred to in subsection (1) shall, in determining whether it is in the best interests of the State to ratify an international agreement, consider— (a) (b) (c) (d) the object of the international agreement; whether existing legislation adequately addresses the object of the international agreement; the impact of implementing any measure specified in the international agreement; and any legislative measures that may be required to give effect to the international agreement.” In this regard, stakeholders’ views on the proposal to ratify the Protocol were categorised around the four parameters cited above.
The Object of the International Agreement i.

The general objective of the Protocol was that it supplemented the Montreal Convention (“the Convention”) to which Zambia was party, by including offences set out below.
a) Committing an act of violence against a person on board an aircraft in flight if it is likely to endanger the safety of the aircraft; b) Destroying an aircraft being serviced or damaging such an aircraft in such a way that rendered it incapable of flight or which was likely to endanger its safety in flight; c) Placing or causing to be placed on an aircraft a device or substance which was likely to destroy or cause damage to an aircraft; d) Destroying or damaging air navigation facilities or interfering with their operation if it was likely to endanger the safety of aircraft; e) Communicating information which was known to be false, thereby endangering the safety of an aircraft in flight; 4 f) Attempting any of 1–5; and g) Being an accomplice to any of 1–6.
The stakeholders contended that the ratification of the Protocol would enable Zambia Airways (yet to be launched) and other airline operators draw redress from any and all unlawful acts of violence against them.

They added that the ratification would also strengthen security of airports, especially with the growing threats of terrorism in the world.

Stakeholders further contended that it was very important that Zambia ratified the Protocol to enhance Part IX of the Civil Aviation Act, No.
5 of 2016, on Offences Committed on Board Civil Aircraft in Flight and Protective Measures and Part XIII on Enforcement, Offences and Penalties.

ii.

Existing Legislation Addressing the Objects of the International Agreement Stakeholders were of the view that domestic legislation did not specifically and adequately address the suppression of unlawful acts of violence, dangerous or damaging acts at airports serving international civil aviation.
They contended that the Penal Code, Chapter 87 of the Laws of Zambia, the Civil Aviation Act, No.

5 of 2016;and the Anti Terrorism and Non Proliferation Act, No.

6 of 2018, only took into account acts of violence leading to injury or death but did not cover the broader scope provided in the Protocol.

iii.
iii.

The Impact of Implementing any Measure Specified in the International Agreement Stakeholders were in agreement with the position held by State Parties to the Protocol that unlawful acts of violence jeopardised the safety of persons and property at airports and thus undermined the confidence in and the safety of civil aviation.
This, therefore, called for a legal regime which could deter such unlawful acts and provide appropriate measures for punishing perpetrators of these unlawful acts of violence at airports.
Stakeholders contended that Member States to the Protocol, including Zambia, would benefit from sharing information relating to offenses under the Protocol and would have jurisdiction to prosecute offenders who committed offenses under the Protocol, even where a perpetrator was not extradited to the country of commission of the offence.
Stakeholders informed the Committee that currently, Zambia did not have the jurisdiction to prosecute foreign offenders or suspects from countries which had not signed bilateral agreements with her on extradition.

In this regard ratifying the Protocol would put the country in a better position to prosecute foreign offenders and suspects, whether or not there were extradition bilateral agreements.
Stakeholders added that since Zambian citizens travelled quite a lot domestically and internationally using local and international airlines, it was possible for them be victims of violence at airports serving international civil aviation and there would be no redress if the protocol was not ratified.

With regard to financial obligations and costs, the Committee was informed that no immediate obligations would be imposed on Zambia by the Convention and Protocol.
However, should any such financial obligations be required to be fulfilled in the future, they would be remitted using the Government’s annual budget.

5 Stakeholders were generally concerned at the delay in the ratification of the Protocol, which came into effect thirty one years ago.
The stakeholders contended that the ratification of the Protocol for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts of Violence at Airports serving International Civil Aviation and other outstanding international agreements would place Zambia in good standing on the international scene and allow her to share best practices with other states on various matters of a regional and global nature.

iv.
iv.

Legislative Measures Required to Give Effect to the International Agreement The Committee learnt that once the Protocol for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts of Violence at Airports serving International Civil Aviation was ratified, to give it domesticate effect, the pieces of legislation set out below would need to be amended in order to domesticate the protocol; The Civil Aviation Authority Act, No.

7 of 2012; The Civil Aviation Act, No.

5 of 2016; i. ii.

iii.


The Penal Code, Chapter 87 of the Laws of Zambia; iv.

v. The Criminal Procedure Code, Chapter 88 of the Laws of Zambia; and The Anti-Terrorism and Non Proliferation Act, No.

8 of 2018.

Some stakeholders proposed specific amendments to the Civil Aviation Act No.

5 of 2016.
5 of 2016.

They contended that whereas Article 1 of the Convention provided for various offences and Article 3 mandated each contracting state to undertake to make the offences mentioned in Article 1 of the Convention punishable by severe penalties, Section 80 of the Act prescribed only a fine not exceeding forty thousand penalty units or a term of imprisonment not exceeding two years, or to both.
Further, Sections 136 and 137 of the Act both prescribed a fine not exceeding seven hundred thousand penalty units or a term of imprisonment not exceeding seven years, or both.

The stakeholders contended that the penalties prescribed under the Act were certainly not severe enough to be a deterrent and did not reflect the seriousness of the offences.

In this regard, stakeholders proposed that the penalties in the Act be revised upwards to reflect the serious nature of the offences in issue.
They further proposed a life sentence.

On the other hand, stakeholders welcomed the amendment of Article 1 of the Convention by the insertion of a new paragraph 1 bis, which catered for offences committed against a person at an international airport or causing destruction or serious damage to facilities at an international airport if such an act endangered or was likely to endanger safety at that airport.
Stakeholders contended that this provision covered the lacuna which restricted offences to those affecting aircraft in flight or in service and destruction or damage to air navigation facilities.
Having satisfied themselves that the criteria to determine whether the Protocol was in the best interests of the State as set out in the Ratification of International Agreements Act, No.34 of 2016 had been met, stakeholders unanimously supported the proposal to ratify the Protocol for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts of Violence at Airports Serving International Civil Aviation.
6 9.0 Committee’s Observations and Recommendations The Committee agrees with the stakeholders who contended that the ratification of the Protocol to the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts of Violence at Airports Serving International Civil Aviation was long overdue.

However, in supporting the proposal to ratify the protocol, the Committee makes observations and recommendations as set out hereunder.

i.
i.

The Object of the International Agreement The Committee observes that whereas Zambia became a State Party to the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Civil Aviation in March, 1987, it has not ratified the Protocol which came into effect in February, 1988.
The Committee observes, further, that the Protocol addresses lacunae in the principal Convention which restricted offences to those affecting aircraft in flight or in service and destruction or damage to air navigation facilities but does not make provision for offences against a person at an international airport.
In this regard, the Committee bemoans the long inordinately long period it has taken for Zambia to ratify the Protocol and therefore, recommends that the Protocol be ratified without further delay in order to strengthen security at airports, especially with the growing threat of terrorism in the world and bring Zambia in tandem with the international aviation Community.

ii.
ii.

Existing Legislation Addressing the Objects of the International Agreement The Committee observes that currently there is no legislation in Zambia that comprehensively addresses the suppression of unlawful acts of violence, dangerous or damaging acts at airports serving international civil aviation.

The Committee notes, further, that the Penal Code Chapter 87 of the Laws of Zambia, the Civil Aviation Act, No.

5 of 2016;and the Anti Terrorism and Non Proliferation Act, No.
6 of 2018, only address acts of violence leading to injury or death but do not cover the broader scope provided in the Protocol.

In this regard, the Committee recommends that the Protocol which encompasses all crimes at airports be ratified.

iii.
iii.

The Impact of Implementing any Measure Specified in the International Agreement The Committee observes that unlawful acts of violence at airports jeopardise the safety of persons and property at airports and thus undermine the confidence in and the safety of civil aviation.

The Committee notes, further, that currently, Zambia does not have the jurisdiction to prosecute foreign offenders or suspects from countries which have not signed bilateral agreements with her on extradition.
In this regard the Committee recommends the National Assembly approve the proposal to ratify the Protocol as it will put the country in a better position to prosecute foreign offenders and suspects whether or not there are extradition bilateral agreements.

This will also offer protection to Zambian citizens who travel locally and internationally using local and international airlines should they fall victim to violence at airports serving international civil aviation.
7 The Committee, further, notes that there are no immediate financial obligations and costs associated with the ratification of the protocol and that should they arise in the future, they will be remitted through the national budget.

iv.
iv.

Legislative Measures Required to Give Effect to the International Agreement The Committee observes that in order to give effect to the Protocol for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts of Violence at Airports serving International Civil Aviation, there will be need for reform of the pieces of legislation cited below.

i. ii.

iii.

iv.

v. The Civil Aviation Authority Act, No.

7 of 2012; The Civil Aviation Act, No.


5 of 2016; The Penal Code, Chapter 87 of the Laws of Zambia; The Criminal Procedure Code, Chapter 88 of the Laws of Zambia; and The Anti-Terrorism and Non Proliferation Act, No.

8 of 2018.

The Committee agrees with the stakeholders who proposed specific amendments to the Civil Aviation Act, No.

5 of 2016.
5 of 2016.

The Committee observes that whereas Article 1 of the Convention provides for various offences and Article 3 mandates each contracting state to undertake to make the offences mentioned in Article 1 of the Convention punishable by severe penalties, Section 80 of the Act prescribes only a fine not exceeding forty thousand penalty units or a term of imprisonment not exceeding two years, or both.
Further, Sections 136 and 137 of the Act both prescribe a fine not exceeding seven hundred thousand penalty units or a term of imprisonment not exceeding seven years, or both.

The Committee observes that the penalties prescribed under the Act are not severe enough to be a deterrent and do not reflect the seriousness of the offences for which they are imposed.
In this regard, the Committee recommends that the penalties in the Act should be revised upwards to reflect the serious nature of the offences in issue.

They further concur with the stakeholders that a life sentence should be included among the penalties prescribed.
Further, the Committee supports the amendment of Article 1 of the Convention by the insertion of new paragraph 1 bis, which caters for offences committed against a person at an international airport or causing destruction or serious damage to facilities at an international airport, if such an act endangers or is likely to endanger safety at that airport.
This provision covers the lacuna which previously restricted offences to those affecting aircraft in flight or in service and destruction or damage to air navigation facilities.
The Committee is satisfied that the conditions for determining whether or not the ratification of the Protocol to the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Civil Aviation is in the best interests of the nation, as set out in the Ratification of International Agreements Act No.34 of 2016, have been met.
8 The Committee therefore recommends that the National Assembly approves the proposal to ratify Protocol to the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Civil Aviation, without reservations.

9.0 Conclusion The Committee observes, with grave concern, the number of outstanding international agreements and the inordinately long time it has taken for them to be ratified.
The Committee is of the view that as a result of non ratification, Zambia and Zambian nationals have lost out on the benefits accruing to countries that are party to these international agreements.

The Committee is of the view that this can be attributed to the absence of an institution charged with the responsibility of coordinating the ratification process across responsible line ministries.
In this vein, the Committee recommends that an Inter-Ministerial Coordinating Committee or Council be set up at Cabinet Office to superintend over the ratification process.

The Committee wishes to express its gratitude to all stakeholders who appeared before it and tendered both oral and written submissions.
The Committee wishes to thank you Mr Speaker, for affording it an opportunity to scrutinise the proposal to ratify the Protocol to the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Civil Aviation.

The Committee also appreciates the services rendered by the Office of the Clerk of the National Assembly.
We have the Honour to be, Sir, your Committee on National Security and Foreign Affairs, tasked to consider the proposal to ratify the Protocol to the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Civil Aviation for the Fourth Session of the Twelfth National Assembly.
Dr M Malama, MP, (Chairperson) Ms A M Chisangano, MP (Vice Chairperson) Mr E J Muchima, MP; (Member) Brig Gen M Sitwala, MP; (Member) Mr K Mbangweta, MP; (Member) Mr L Nyirenda, MP; (Member) 9 Ms M Miti, MP; (Member) Dr F N’gambi, MP; and (Member) Mr A B Malama, MP.
(Member) Ms M Lubezhi, MP (Member) June 2020 LUSAKA Dr M Malama, MP CHAIRPERSON 10 Appendix I List of Witnesses Ministry of Justice Mrs F M Bwalya, Chief Parliamentary Counsel Mr L Banda, Parliamentary Counsel Ministry of Home Affairs Dr C L Mulenga, Permanent Secretary Mr G Sinyenga, Director-Human Resource Development Mr A Mukisi, Parliamentary Liaison Officer Mr P Choolwe, Assistant Director Research and Planning Mr C Simwanza, Director National Anti-Terrorism Centre Mr S M Kunda, Deputy Director, National Anti-Terrorism Centre Mr G Malunga, Deputy Director, Zambia Police Service, Marine National Airports Corporation Mr F Mondoloka, Managing Director Mr A Bvulani, Director- Airport Services Mr F M Mulenga, Airport Manager Ministry of Transport and Communications Mr M Lungu, Permanent Secretary Mr G Lesa, Director General, Civil Aviation Authority Mr S Mbewe, Director Planning Mr Z Phiri, Director Mr D Kafuli, Acting Director Transport Mr S Kunda, Legal Counsel National Anti-Terrorism Centre Mr C Simwanza, Director Mr A Mukisi, Parliamentary Liaison Officer LT Col J Kajila, Chief of Operations Mr K Lisuli, Anti-Terrorism Officer Law Association of Zambia Ms W Siwale, Council Member Mahogany Air Mr J Belemu, Chief Executive Officer Ministry of Defence Mr E L Zimba, Acting Permanent Secretary Ms M Namwawa, Legal Officer Mr F Mwansa, Principal Research and Public Relations Officer Mr J C Makanta, Air Secretary 11 Maj G N Miyutu, Legal Officer Zambia Air Service Training Institute Mr B Shingalili , Principal Mr B Mubita, Head of Training Mr E Mwanza Quality Manager Ministry of Foreign Affairs Amb.
C Lombe, Permanent Secretary Mrs L Matapo, Legal Counsel Mr S Mandanda, Director - Development and International Organisation Mr H Banda, National Coordinator -International Conference of the Great Lakes Region Mr M B Milambo, Planning Officer.

Chartered Institute of Logistics and Transport Mr P Chiyuwe, Chief Executive Officer Mr K Simukanga, Honorary Secretary Mr E Mwale inspector Mr K Mwamba, Inspector Ministry of Housing and Infrastructure Development Eng.
C Mushota, Permanent Secretary Dr R Banda, Director-Planning Mr A Banda, Director-Human Resource Eng.

D Mufuna, Director- Public Infrastructure 12 Appendix II List of National Assembly Officials Ms C Musonda, Principal Clerk of Committees Mr F Nabulyato, Deputy Principal Clerk of Committees (SC) Mr S Chiwota, Senior Committee Clerk (SC) Mr C Chishimba, Committee Clerk Mrs G Chikwenya, Typist Mr M Kantumoya, Parliamentary Messenger 13